Erika Turkstra

A Randomized Controlled Trial of a Psycho-Education Intervention by Midwives in Reducing Childbirth Fear in Pregnant Women

Background Childbirth fear is associated with increased obstetric interventions and poor emotional and psychological health for women. The purpose of this study is to test an antenatal psycho-education intervention by midwives in reducing womens childbirth fear. Methods Women (n = 1,410) attending three hospitals in South East Queensland, Australia, were recruited into the BELIEF trial. Participants reporting high fear were randomly allocated to intervention (n = 170) or control (n = 169) groups. All women received a decision-aid booklet on childbirth choices. The telephone counseling intervention was offered at 24 and 34 weeks of pregnancy. The control group received usual care offered by public maternity services. Primary outcome was reduction in childbirth fear (WDEQ-A) from second trimester to 36 weeks’ gestation. Secondary outcomes were improved childbirth self-efficacy, and reduced decisional conflict and depressive symptoms. Demographic, obstetric & psychometric measures were administered at recruitment, and 36 weeks of pregnancy. Results There were significant differences between groups on postintervention scores for fear of birth (p < 0.001) and childbirth self-efficacy (p = 0.002). Decisional conflict and depressive symptoms reduced but were not significant. Conclusion Psycho-education by trained midwives was effective in reducing high childbirth fear levels and increasing childbirth confidence in pregnant women. Improving antenatal emotional well-being may have wider positive social and maternity care implications for optimal childbirth experiences.

A mixed treatment comparison of the short-term efficacy of biologic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs in established rheumatoid arthritis

Abstract Background: The short-term efficacy of biological disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) for the treatment of established moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has been demonstrated by various randomized placebo or active treatment controlled trials. However, there is a lack of direct comparison of these agents. Scope: To compare the short-term efficacy of nine bDMARDs – abatacept, adalimumab, anakinra, certolizumab, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab, rituximab and tocilizumab – in patients with established RA. Findings: A systematic review was conducted to obtain all available efficacy data for each included bDMARD. Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane clinical trials were searched for trials in patients with RA. Twenty-seven trials were retrieved from a systematic literature search and included in the meta-analysis. Mixed treatment comparison (MTC) techniques were used to perform indirect comparisons. Analyses were conducted to estimate the odds ratio of an ACR20, ACR50, and ACR70 response at approximately six months if treated with a bDMARD compared with placebo or methotrexate. Between-drug comparisons were also made. The analyses were performed including recommended doses only (as per the product information). All drugs except anakinra and golimumab demonstrated a statistically significant advantage compared to control treatment for ACR20 responses. The between-drug comparisons revealed a statistically significant advantage for certolizumab compared to most bDMARDs for ACR20, ACR50 and ACR70 response and for etanercept versus adalimumab and anakinra for ACR20 and ACR50 response, as well as a statistically significant advantage for tocilizumab versus anakinra for ACR50 response. Conclusion: The analyses, using MTC of efficacy of nine bDMARDs suggest that treatment with anakinra is inferior to other bDMARDs and that etanercept and certolizumab may be more effective than other bDMARDs. There are some limitations of our analyses due to MTC assumptions, variations in trial design and the fact that only ACR outcomes at six months were included.

Yes, The Government Should Tax Soft Drinks: Findings from a Citizens’ Jury in Australia

Taxation has been suggested as a possible preventive strategy to address the serious public health concern of childhood obesity. Understanding the public’s viewpoint on the potential role of taxation is vital to inform policy decisions if they are to be acceptable to the wider community. A Citizens’ Jury is a deliberative method for engaging the public in decision making and can assist in setting policy agendas. A Citizens’ Jury was conducted in Brisbane, Australia in May 2013 to answer the question: Is taxation on food and drinks an acceptable strategy to the public in order to reduce rates of childhood obesity? Citizens were randomly selected from the electoral roll and invited to participate. Thirteen members were purposively sampled from those expressing interest to broadly reflect the diversity of the Australian public. Over two days, participants were presented with evidence on the topic by experts, were able to question witnesses and deliberate on the evidence. The jurors unanimously supported taxation on sugar-sweetened drinks but generally did not support taxation on processed meats, snack foods and foods eaten/ purchased outside the home. They also supported taxation on snack foods on the condition that traffic light labelling was also introduced. Though they were not specifically asked to deliberate strategies outside of taxation, the jurors strongly recommended more nutritional information on all food packaging using the traffic light and teaspoon labelling systems for sugar, salt and fat content. The Citizens’ Jury suggests that the general public may support taxation on sugar-sweetened drinks to reduce rates of obesity in children. Regulatory reforms of taxation on sugar-sweetened drinks and improved labelling of nutritional information on product packaging were strongly supported by all members of the jury. These reforms should be considered by governments to prevent childhood obesity and the future burden on society from the consequences of obesity.

A non-randomised trial investigating the cost-effectiveness of Midwifery Group Practice compared with standard maternity care arrangements in one Australian hospital

OBJECTIVE to compare cost-effectiveness of two models of maternity service delivery: Midwifery Group Practice (MGP) at a birth centre and standard care (SC). DESIGN a prospective non-randomised trial. SETTING an Australian metropolitan hospital. METHOD women at 36 weeks gestation were approached in the birth centre or hospital antenatal clinics between March and December 2008. Of 170 consecutive women who met birth centre eligibility criteria, 70% (n=119) were recruited to the study. Women (MGP n=52 or standard care n=50) were followed through to 6 weeks postpartum. Publically funded care costs were collected from womens diaries, handheld pregnancy health records, medical records and the hospital accounting system. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES health-care costs to the hospital and government. ANALYSIS generalised linear models with covariates of age, nulliparity, private health insurance (yes/no) and household income category. FINDINGS women receiving MGP care were less likely to experience induction of labour, required fewer antenatal visits, received more postnatal care, and neonates were less likely to be admitted to special care nursery than those receiving standard care. Statistically significant lower costs were found for women and babies receiving MGP care compared with women receiving standard care during pregnancy, labour and birth and postpartum to 6 weeks. MGP resulted in lower costs for the hospital (

Effects of a midwife psycho-education intervention to reduce childbirth fear on women’s birth outcomes and postpartum psychological wellbeing

AUD4,696 vs.

Triple therapy in type 2 diabetes; a systematic review and network meta-analysis

AUD5,521 p<0.001) and the government (

The cost-effectiveness and consumer acceptability of taxation strategies to reduce rates of overweight and obesity among children in Australia: study protocol.

AUD4,722 vs.

An economic evaluation alongside a randomised controlled trial on psycho-education counselling intervention offered by midwives to address women's fear of childbirth in Australia

AUD5,641 p<0.001). When baby costs were excluded MGP care remained statistically significantly cheaper than standard care. CONCLUSION for women at low-risk of birth complications, Midwifery Group Practice was cost effective, and women experienced fewer obstetric interventions compared with standard maternity care. The evidence suggests Midwifery Group Practice is safe and economically viable.

PIH3 A COSTING STUDY COMPARING MIDWIFERY GROUP PRACTICE WITH USUAL CARE IN AN AUSTRALIAN METROPOLITAN HOSPITAL

BackgroundHigh levels of childbirth fear impact birth preparation, obstetric outcomes and emotional wellbeing for around one in five women living in developed countries. Higher rates of obstetric intervention and caesarean section (CS) are experienced in fearful women. The efficacy of interventions to reduce childbirth fear is unclear, with no previous randomised controlled trials reporting birth outcomes or postnatal psychological wellbeing following a midwife led intervention.MethodBetween May 2012 and June 2013 women in their second trimester of pregnancy were recruited. Women with a fear score ≥ 66 on the Wijma Delivery Expectancy / Experience Questionnaire (W-DEQ) were randomised to receive telephone psycho-education by a midwife, or usual maternity care. A two armed non-blinded parallel (1:1) multi-site randomised controlled trial with participants allocated in blocks of ten and stratified by hospital site and parity using an electronic centralised computer service. The outcomes of the RCT on obstetric outcomes, maternal psychological well-being, parenting confidence, birth satisfaction, and future birth preference were analysed by intention to treat and reported here.Results1410 women were screened for high childbirth fear (W-DEQ ≥66). Three hundred and thirty-nine (n = 339) women were randomised (intervention n = 170; controls n = 169). One hundred and eighty-four women (54 %) returned data for final analysis at 6 weeks postpartum (intervention n = 91; controls n = 93).Compared to controls the intervention group had a clinically meaningful but not statistically significant reduction in overall caesarean section (34 % vs 42 %, p = 0.27) and emergency CS rates (18 % vs 25 %, p = 0.23). Fewer women in the intervention group preferred caesarean section for a future pregnancy (18 % vs 30 %, p = 0.04). All other obstetric variables remained similar. There were no differences in postnatal depression symptoms scores, parenting confidence, or satisfaction with maternity care between groups, but a lower incidence of flashbacks about their birth in the intervention group compared to controls (14 % vs 26 %, p = 0.05). Postnatally women who received psycho-education reported that the ‘decision aid’ helped reduce their fear (53 % vs 37 %, p = 0.02).ConclusionFollowing a brief antenatal midwife-led psycho-education intervention for childbirth fear women were less likely to experience distressing flashbacks of birth and preferred a normal birth in a future pregnancy. A reduction in overall CS rates was also found. Psycho-education for fearful women has clinical benefits for the current birth and expectations of future pregnancies.Trial registrationAustralian New Zealand Controlled Trials Registry ACTRN12612000526875, 17th May 2012

PHARMACEUTICAL BENEFITS ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS IN AUSTRALIA

Aims. The purpose was to evaluate the evidence for triple therapy regimen using medicines available in Australia for type 2 diabetes. Methods. A systematic literature review was performed to update the relevant evidence from 2002 to 2014 on triple therapy for type 2 diabetes. A multiple-treatments network meta-analysis was undertaken to summarise the comparative efficacy and harms of different triple therapies. Results. Twenty seven trials were identified, most were six months of duration. The following combinations were included in the network meta-analysis: metformin (MET) + sulfonylureas (SU) (used as reference combination); MET + SU+ dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors (DPP-4-i); MET + SU+ thiazolidinediones (TZD); MET + SU+ glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1-RA); MET + SU+ insulins; MET + TZD + DPP-4-i; and MET + SU+ sodium/glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2-i). For HbA1c reduction, all triple therapies were statistically superior to MET+SU dual therapy, except for MET + TZD + DPP-4-i. None of the triple therapy combinations demonstrated differences in HbA1c compared with other triple therapies. MET + SU + SGLT2-i and MET + SU + GLP-1-RA resulted in significantly lower body weight than MET + SU + DPP-4-i, MET+SU+insulin and MET + SU + TZDs; MET + SU + DPP-4-i resulted in significantly lower body weight than MET + SU + insulin and MET + SU + TZD. MET + SU + insulin, MET + SU + TZD and MET + SU + DPP-4-i increased the odds of hypoglycaemia when compared to MET + SU. MET + SU + GLP-1-RA reduced the odds of hypoglycaemia compared to MET + SU + insulin. Conclusion. Care when choosing a triple therapy combination is needed as there is often a risk of increased hypoglycaemia events associated with this regimen and there are very limited data surrounding the long-term effectiveness and safety of combined therapies.